The Most Significant Differences Betwee Modernnation States And Earlier Forms Of Political Community

The most significant differences between modern nation states

and earlier forms of political community ?

A watershed in International Relations occurred when the Westphalia Treaties came into being in 1648, marking the end of the Thirty Years war in Europe. Ð''The Peace of Westphalia is perhaps the most important benchmark in the formation of the modern territorial state' (Opello & Rosow 1999 ch4 pp70). These treaties brought about a new framework for inter-state relations within Europe, which brought with it a semblance of law and order which was recognized and acknowledged by all European states, Ð''the multinational treaties of Westphalia,-----came to be known as the Ð''public law of Europe' (Hinsley 1967 pp168). Thus an improved degree of stability and legitimacy became apparent in Europe and in time the primary consequences of the Westphalia Treaties, state sovereignty, precisely defined state territorial boundaries, and diminished religious dogmatism came to be accepted by nations outside of Europe and thus became truly international. Ð''European international law-----came to be applied around the world' (Jackson 1990 pp44).

Sovereignty

Heading the list of significant differences between modern nation states and earlier forms of political community must be the assertion of absolute sovereignty by the modern nation states. That assertion became recognized as legitimate by all other states.

The sovereign state concept within Europe came into being with the Westphalia treaties. Ð''The Peace of Westphalia recognized the principle of state sovereignty and enshrined the concept of secure and universally recognized state borders in law' (Opello & Rosow 1999 ch4 pp70). However together with the accompanying concept of defined and acknowledged territorial boundaries these new institutions were only fully assimilated over the next two hundred years.

The effectiveness and major strength of the concept of sovereignty lay in the necessity for it to be fully reciprocal. Ð''the exchange of recognition of sovereignty is a basic rule of coexistence within the states system' (Bull 1977 pp36). Therefore it was in the interest of each individual state to support the sovereign claims of another, thus ensuring that the framework of sovereignty was consistently being reinforced and strengthened.

The concept of sovereignty gave the governing authorities of modern states, supreme power over all political decisions and principles that had a bearing upon their state and its citizens. It was also empowered to have dominance over its relations with external states including the right to initiate economic sanctions or military action against other nation states and their citizens.' The state has supreme authority domestically and independence internationally' (Dunne 1995 Box6.5)

Whilst individual states enjoyed equal sovereignty, the internal regimes of sovereign states varied in accordance with the various political agendas, the allegiance of its citizens and the resources it had at its disposal. Therefore the governing regimes are of necessity tailored to fit these variances. Ð''Not only do the forms of government and the political ideologies of sovereign states vary widely but their governments differ markedly in power, objectives and bureaucratic sophistication' (Ross-Fowler & Bunck 1992 pp. 382).

Prior to the development of the sovereignty concept the ruling authorities in the areas that attained statehood under Westphalia were usually fragmented and recognized only by the amount of military force and wealth that they could muster. They were therefore constantly under challenge from forces that considered themselves superior in those factors, thereby creating substantial instability and stress for the citizens of those times.

Territorial Boundaries

Whilst boundaries did exist prior to Westphalia, they were, merely regions of influence tied to wealth, or geographical features, rather than strictly defined territorial boundaries, acknowledged by external states. Ð''boundaries were more often frontier zones where authority faded away' (Buzan & Little 1999 pp90). The Roman Empire with its standing armies was able to maintain vague boundary lines, but these were generally impermanent, regularly ballooning inward or outward, dependent upon the fortunes of their constant military actions. Individual noblemen constructed castles which provided sanctuary for the serfs who worked their fields, thereby giving a semblance of tentative protection to the boundaries of the nobleman's land. Religious authorities, such as an "Abbot", protected their boundaries by threatening excommunication on trespassers. 'The threat of excommunication was usually sufficient to persuade a recalcitrant king to bend to the churches wishes' (Opello & Rosow 1999 ch2 pp37). Merchants formed guilds creating wide ranging commercial criteria to preserve their trading functions, whilst City states formed leagues and built walls to protect their property boundaries. Monarchs had to access funds from nobles, church and the bourgeoisie to raise sufficient military might to either protect the kingdoms boundaries or invade other boundaries. Therefore the protection and enforcing of boundaries and property was closely tied to the access of wealth and military strength.

With the gradual development of the Westphalia framework the perceived need to maintain a constant, on-call, protective military force abated. Therefore so also did the requirement to maintain reserves of immense wealth to fund an instant military response. Ð''the divorce of wealth from the control of territory reduces the traditional incentives for war' (Buzan & Little 1999 pp92). This freed up funds for states to develop civic infrastructure and the pursuit of commercial growth.

Conclusion

The Westphalian Treaties brought other direct features of significant and positive change, such as reducing the constant and immensely damaging conflicts between religious entities. Indirectly it encouraged the growth of diplomacy thereby inter-state disputes could be solved by reasoned discussion rather